Irrelevant, that is/was part of their contract regardless of outcome (otherwise R&D departments wouldn't exist, failure tolerances wouldn't exist, etc).
Musk merely gave directive, he didn't implement or do this R&D on his own. Calling this Musk's success is like saying Einstein design and built the atom bomb thus he is solely responsible for the death of many a Japanese. But society doesn't take that point of view, instead only that he contributed to it, not that he owned it through and through. A good leader leads their subordinates, but they are not the sole factor in their subordinates achieving success. If a leader does not recognize their subordinates, they will soon find they have no subordinates to lead.
This information is very easily found from searching based off their username. Is HN actively preventing people from registering with usernames that are on other sites and services? If not, what are the limits and connections between one's username and one's username on other websites? Further, what is the limit between one's username and full name and/or projects that are indexed on every major search engine? Should we not title this post "Tesla CEO" else we dox that individual?
It doesn't matter how easily the information is found.
By "doxing" I meant posting someone's personal details as a way of attacking them. None of us would want that done to ourselves, and we owe the same consideration to others.
Nor is it needed for substantive discussion, which is the purpose of HN threads.
Am I doxxing myself by using my last name as my username, or by putting my real name, current position at my company, and my email address in my profile?
The problem with your golden rule there is that you make assumptions about what other people want.
> Am I doxxing myself by using my last name as my username, or by putting my real name, current position at my company, and my email address in my profile?
No.
But it's clear that the term "doxxing" (which I've never used before and apparently can't even spell) is a giant distraction. How about we just stick to the point about no personal attacks.
This is exactly what I was getting at, glad someone else saw that. I didn't see posting relevant credentials that are easily found through usernames containing PII to really be doxxing because it's "self-doxxing", and the fact that those credentials are relevant to the discussion.
This is the problem I have with HN moderation, they have rules that they selectively enforce but it's all built on their heuristics which they never flesh-out. Neither of us can go to a page on HN and run through a checklist to determine if content in a post will or will not be considered flaggable/bannable because it's a "closed source heuristic" if you will. There are guidelines sure, but the enforcement seems very wishy-washy and selective.
He said "as a way of attacking them." Are you attacking yourself by posting your personal information? No? Then the answer to your question should be obvious.
You're also making the assumption that if you're fine with it then so must everyone else. If we're to do all this assuming, then let's assume on the side of people's privacy.
Your statement reads, to me admittedly, that since you put your public info out there that no one should care if someone else outs their info to the public. In context of the discussion.
But you can't dox yourself, in the usual meaning of the term.
The point I'm trying to make is that 'ease of discovery' is indeed a relevant factor here, and furthermore in this specific case the user was citing his professional experience with a username that corresponds to his own.
I'd be willing to bet he's perfectly alright with someone posting his professional credentials on this site. I know I would be (and have, in fact).
So is it really doxxing at all, then?
This isn't a topic I'm all that passionate about, I just wanted to point out the differing opinion.
I remember when hackathons were all about "here's some buggy code I wrote that does random/obscure feature/task X because look at how cool that is" and not "look at this pitch/product I'm trying to make to earn prize Y" Shame those days seem to be fading into obscurity.
Maybe YCombinator needs diversity in political beliefs on top of gender then? Get some anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, a few facists/juche, sprinkle in some socialists, a hint of traditionalists, and a few neo-reactionaries. Hehe, that'd be fun to watch.
> including a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word.
Interesting that they are able to transmit audio-data that occurred prior to the wake word being said (in essence to transmit the wake word). Looks like Amazon is keen to redefine "collected" just like other groups are...
Because every time Amazon echo comes up, people always rush it "don't worry guys, it's not actually recording anything until it has to send to the cloud" and by Amazon's own admission, that's patently false.
I am indeed talking about the 1/2 second before. Even if it's 0.00001 seconds before the trigger word (I feel dirty saying that phrase), it's the technicality that I'm discussing. Once we allow those technicalities to slide, the truth is easier to bend and/or ignore. Reinforcing that PR/marketing is not an acceptable excuse to lie (even if it's a minor technical lie) is one of the few ways to prevent this sort of subtle-switcheroo.
> I am indeed talking about the 1/2 second before.
Then you are alone in this. Even amongst technological people, never mind the general public. This amount of time is perfectly reasonable.
> Once we allow those technicalities to slide, the truth is easier to bend and/or ignore.
No it doesn't. Slippery slope might be a valid argument in some places, but not here. You are overreacting.
> to prevent this sort of subtle-switcheroo.
There is no subtle switcheroo.
It's very very simple: It only sends audio when commanded to. That is the essence of the difference, and it's all that matters.
And don't tell me "next they'll send 1 hour of audio when triggered" because they won't. You are being ridiculous if you think that's where it's headed.
Taking outrageous positions like this just makes people ignore you.
> the trigger word (I feel dirty saying that phrase)
? Why? Does it have some special meaning I am not aware of?
It seems even with the separate efforts for once-browsers-now-OSes (Firefox OS/Chrome OS/etc), we're still getting feature-creep in the browser. I understand that webRTC is a spec from the W3C, but I'm not sure that's the ... best ... solution.
Maybe I'm a bit too old-school in this regard, but I view the WWW as an interactive document repository (sites/forums/rich-apps), whereas the Internet is the network that the WWW operates on. So for me, a browser is used to explore/use the WWW whereas individual applications and tools are used to explore/use the Internet.
I feel this is an important distinction because I would like at least one modern/popular web browser to retain this philosophy, which is difficult when each browser (and parent umbrella org) decide to push more desktop-app-like functionality to the browser.
10 years ago the internet was quite different (and 10 years prior to that too), I'm curious / worried / cautious how it'll be in another decade. At least it'll be an interesting ride :-P
If you shop with Amazon.com, you can use the subdomain,
smile.amazon.com
to donate to your favorite charity, of which EFF is a part! So, if you'd like to 'passively' donate to the EFF, you can change your smile.amazon.com settings (and ensure you shop/checkout w/ the Smile subdomain) and a portion of your purchase will go to the EFF.
There are many organizations and charities that are a part of the Smile program, so choose whichever you'd like to support.
There's also a service called "Igive" which is even better & works with over 1000 different online merchants. Each merchant supposedly donates a percentage of your purchase to the cause you've chosen, which varies merchant to merchant. I've seen some who do as high as 20% while a majority are somewhere between 2-10%. Easy to use & much easier to add a nonprofit to if it's not already a choice. I was able to add Erowid & I'm not affiliated with them in any way. They have a great directory of all the supported merchants & even a discount/coupon code section. I'd be surprised if EFF wasn't already on it, but it could easily be added & you could use Igive to support them every time you shop online, which I think is awesome.
I'm very against the style of discussion about these topics, it's very "you agree with this feature 100% or any criticism is seen as an attack" rather than an attempt to debate the merits of features / implementations.
Firefox is a browser. Can you please stop with the feature creep? That'd be lovely. Remember, you're a browser, not an operating system. Oh, you'd like to be an operating system? Cool, then make an OS (o hai there Firefox OS) and keep that functionality there. Stop adding extra features that are not needed to browse the internet.
It seems only Lynx cares about an authentic node-to-node / client-to-server relationship without all the privacy concerns :-(
Can Lynx activate this feature at all? Lynx may have bookmarks, but as far as I can tell, Lynx does not have WebRTC support, which means it can not be exploited to share private LAN IP addresses, nor can it access web cams.
Firefox, like Chrome, is going overboard with non-web-browsing features. Some less technical users surely will appreciate that, but at some point it becomes less of a browser and more of a pseudo-OS.
If people don't voice their opinion against this direction, then Mozilla will continue down this path. I don't think it's too much to ask a web browser to be a web browser and nothing more.
I am also against webRTC, I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Mozilla is signalling with this that they're looking to push applications that leverage their feature-set.
> I think no shut-in nor introvert gets satisfaction from such behaviour.
It's amazing how you're acutely aware to how every introvert feels about this, when did you manage to contact them all and convince them to respond to such a question? Otherwise, how can you make such an absolute assertion?
You missed the "I think" part. I was genuinely sharing my assumptions and experiences. OF COURSE I can't speak for all introverts I don't know, but your post is forcing me to highlight such obviousness.
I did see the "I think" part, but I also saw "no introvert" which was taking an absolute stance, regardless of it being your opinion or not.
You could have used "some", "most", "many", "a sizable portion", etc, but you took an absolute term rather than a malleable term. It's not my fault you're unclear in your communication.
Irrelevant
> The privilege to work on cutting edge tech
Irrelevant
> The satisfaction of their customers
> Their salary and so on and so forth
Irrelevant, that is/was part of their contract regardless of outcome (otherwise R&D departments wouldn't exist, failure tolerances wouldn't exist, etc).
Musk merely gave directive, he didn't implement or do this R&D on his own. Calling this Musk's success is like saying Einstein design and built the atom bomb thus he is solely responsible for the death of many a Japanese. But society doesn't take that point of view, instead only that he contributed to it, not that he owned it through and through. A good leader leads their subordinates, but they are not the sole factor in their subordinates achieving success. If a leader does not recognize their subordinates, they will soon find they have no subordinates to lead.